Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] Rework vdev probing to use rte_bus infrastructure

[Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com> wrote:
> On Monday 27 February 2017 06:39 PM, Jan Blunck wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> With the rte_bus infrastructure present in 17.02 it is possible to
>>> refactor
>>> the virtual device probing into a bus. This series also introduces the
>>> rte_vdev_device to better keep track of devices.
>>>
>>> This patchset depends on:
>>> http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/20416/
>>> http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/20417/
>>>
>>> Changes since version 2:
>>>  * implicit bus registration through rte_eal_vdrv_register()
>>
>>
>> On a second thought I don't think that this is correct though since it
>> opens up the possibility of racing an alternative "virtual" bus. I
>> don't think that this is a good thing though. I'll fix this in v4.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>
> I prefer the RTE_REGISTER* way.
> The issue of duplicate bus remains whether we use the macro or the
> implicit way.
>
> If you use RTE_*, do you think that duplicate registration issue
> is worth fixing?
> (It would mean rte_bus_register to return error which the caller
> would then need to handle).
>

I don't think that there is a good way to handle this if we use the
library constructors. It is better to fail the registration of the bus
and log the error via RTE_LOG(). That introduces a dependency on the
initialization of the logging system to be available before the
library constructors run (before main()).